[Ocfs2-users] future of ocfs2

[Joel Becker]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 06:28:51PM -0600, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> We're internally debating whether or not we should include OCFS2 in this 
> design right now, and I'm curious if anyone has arguments one way or the 
> other to share. Our standard design on Solaris does utilize a cluster 
> filesystem and we would welcome a similar design, but there are some 
> concerns about the readiness, stability and future of OCFS2.

	Short answer: It's been ready for years, it's been stable for
years, and it has a bright future.

> OCFS2 is being considered for these four use cases:
> - database binaries (vs local files or NFS)
> - diag top (11g) or admin tree (10g) (vs local files or NFS)
> - archived logs
> - backups

	These are the most standard and basic of ocfs2 uses outside of
data files.  Almost all customers running ocfs2 are using it for most or
all of these files.

> I have seen mention in blogs such as 
> http://bigdaveroberts.wordpress.com/ of something called ASMFS in 11gR2 
> and I'm wondering - will this feature (if included) have any impact on 
> Oracle's commitment to OCFS2 development? Could Oracle conceivably 
> develop a whole new cluster filesystem and put their full weight behind 
> it as they did for ASM storage, leaving OCFS2 as a lower priority for 
> new features and improvements? Has Oracle demonstrated significant 
> commitment to OCFS2 development and support in the past, and is this a 
> mature enough technology for wide-scale deployment?

	Oracle continually works to improve the power and usability of
of its products.  Sometimes features overlap, but that doesn't mean they
must exclude each other.  For example, you are planning to use ASM
storage for datafiles, but a filesystem of some type (ocfs2, NFS,
whatever) for other files.  This works just fine.  Those of us who work
on ocfs2 are not stopping.
	Let's revisit your questions at the top.  First up is readiness.
ocfs2 1.2, the older of the two currently supported production releases,
was released in February 2006.  That's three years ago.  Customers have
been running it for the use cases you describe ever since.
	Next is stability.  Oracle does extensive testing on each
release of ocfs2 to provide the best stability we can.  The 1.2 release
ironed out most of its bugs long ago.  The new 1.4 release, released in
August 2008, provides some significant performance improvements and is
already being adopted by our customers.
	What about the future?  We just released the 1.4 version, and
we're not done yet.  As Sunil pointed out in his email, we have a number
of significant features landing in the mainline Linux kernel; this is
where we do the development of ocfs2.  These features will make their
way into ocfs2 1.4 or a future release as they become stable.
	I hope that covers Oracle's commitment to the development of
ocfs2.  For support, let's look at
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/ocfs2/ (you can go there for all sorts of
information about ocfs2):

-8<--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORT

Oracle provides full support for the OCFS2 file system for Oracle's
Unbreakable Linux Network subscribers.

Oracle also extends support for the OCFS2 file system to Red Hat
Enterprise Linux users for use with Oracle's database product.

Novell provides full support for the OCFS2 file system to SUSE Linux
Enterprise Server users. 
->8--------------------------------------------------------------------

	I hope this answers your questions and helps you in making your
decision.

Joel

-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #313

	"Never underestimate the power of love."

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127